A unified language

Abstract

This article explores the role of Interlingua as a manifestation of the utopian ideal of a perfect language. Framed within the broader historical and philosophical quest for a universal means of communication, Interlingua emerges as a pragmatic yet visionary attempt to transcend linguistic barriers. The concept of a perfect language has long been intertwined with utopian thought, reflecting desires for clarity, harmony, and mutual understanding among diverse cultures. By examining Interlingua's design principles, linguistic features, and cultural implications, this study highlights how it both embodies and challenges utopian aspirations. The analysis situates Interlingua within the lineage of constructed languages ​​that seek linguistic universality, revealing the tensions between idealism and practicality in the search for a perfect communicative tool. Ultimately, this article argues that Interlingua represents a unique intersection between linguistic engineering and utopian philosophy.

Origin and development

Origins of the project and linguistic background

The idea of ​​an international auxiliary language has very ancient roots, dating back to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, periods where the ideal of universal reason and the unity of knowledge were central. Renaissance and Humanism: Figures such as Juan Luis Vives and Francis Bacon already imagined universal languages ​​to facilitate communication and science.

17th and 18th centuries: The philosopher Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz dreamed of a characteristica universalis and a rational lingua franca to resolve philosophical and scientific disputes. This period also saw the proliferation of artificial language projects, although none ever became established.

19th century: European colonial expansion and the development of global imperialism highlighted the practical need for a common language for trade and diplomacy. Planned languages ​​emerged, such as Volapük (1879) and then Esperanto (1887), the most popular auxiliary language to this day. These projects had a strong social and pacifist idealism.

The geopolitical and scientific context of the early 20th century

The 20th century was characterized by accelerated and traumatic changes:

• World War I and II: The terrible consequences of the world wars increased interest in projects of international cooperation and mutual understanding to avoid future conflicts.

• Creation of international organizations: The founding of the League of Nations (1919) and then the UN (1945) demonstrated the need for global structures for dialogue and cooperation, where effective communication was key.

• Scientific and technological development: The revolution in the natural sciences, the expansion of education, and scientific specialization created a new linguistic universe with international terminology. English, French, German, and later Russian became the languages ​​of science, but none were universal.

Since the 19th century, globalization and technological advances have fueled the need for an auxiliary language that could facilitate communication between people of different nationalities. In this context, multiple linguistic proposals emerged, from Volapük (created in 1879 by Johann Martin Schleyer) to Esperanto (1887 by Ludwik Zamenhof), all with the goal of being neutral and accessible languages. However, these languages ​​had artificial structures that, although easy to learn, were not based on the natural vocabulary of the world's most widely spoken languages.

Interlingua was born from the search for a more natural alternative, a language that would take advantage of the historical evolution of Latin and the Romance languages, allowing it to be understood without the need for prior learning.

The role of the International Auxiliary Language Association (IALA)

In 1924, the International Auxiliary Language Association (IALA) was founded in New York by Alice Vanderbilt Morris and her husband, Dave Hennen Morris, two philanthropists passionate about international communication. Their goal was to study and develop an international auxiliary language based on scientific principles.

The IALA's early years focused on analyzing existing language systems. With the help of prominent linguists, including Otto Jespersen, Edward Sapir, and André Martinet, languages ​​such as Esperanto, Ido, and Western languages ​​were explored, assessing their viability as means of international communication. Over time, research revealed that the best option was not to adopt an artificial language but to develop a language based on widely recognized terms worldwide.

The Interlingua Creation Process

Beginning in 1937, the IALA began developing its own auxiliary language under the direction of German linguist Alexander Gode, who played a pivotal role in structuring Interlingua. His approach was different from previous artificial languages: instead of creating a grammar from scratch, Gode and his team established rules based on the common vocabulary of Romance languages ​​and English.

The IALA's work culminated in 1951, when the first Interlingua dictionary, titled the Interlingua-English Dictionary, was officially published, along with a detailed grammar. This dictionary included words recognizable to most speakers of Spanish, Italian, French, Portuguese, and English, making it easier to understand without the need for prior instruction.

Fundamental Principles of Interlingua

Interlingua is based on the idea that communication should be as accessible as possible. Its key features include:

1. International Vocabulary: Words that already exist in multiple languages ​​were chosen, ensuring they were recognizable without the need for memorization.
2. Simplified Grammar: While maintaining the basic structure of Romance languages, unnecessary irregularities were eliminated, making Interlingua easy to use.
3. Natural Spelling: The phonetic evolution of words was respected instead of imposing an artificial spelling.
4. Immediate Comprehensibility: Many Romance language speakers can understand Interlingua texts without having previously studied it.

Interlingua within the categories of philosophical utopias

Philosophical utopias can be classified into several families or currents. Below is where Interlingua falls within this classification:

1. Technical or functional utopias These utopias do not imagine a perfect society in moral or spiritual terms, but rather in technical or practical terms. Interlingua belongs to this category because it seeks to solve a technical-cultural problem (the lack of communication between peoples) through a functional tool: a common, understandable, and neutral language.

2. Cosmopolitan utopias They dream of a world without borders, where humanity recognizes itself as one. A single language has been a constant in these visions. Interlingua also belongs to this family, as it promotes a worldview where linguistic diversity does not imply misunderstanding or inequality.

3. Language Utopias These utopias maintain that many of the world's injustices, conflicts, and misunderstandings stem from the defects of human language. Projects such as Leibniz's "lingua perfecta" (characteristic universalis) or Esperanto reflect this type of thinking. Interlingua is an heir to this tradition, but distances itself from purely philosophical or artificial languages, opting for a naturalistic approach based on existing Romance languages.

The Utopia of Interlingua in the Information Society

The advent of the information society, characterized by the widespread creation, distribution, and manipulation of information through digital technologies, is transforming the way human beings communicate and interact globally. Within this new paradigm, the utopian vision of Interlingua as a perfect or ideal language takes on renewed relevance and urgency, as the challenges of linguistic diversity and communicative efficiency become more acute.

The utopian ideal of Interlingua in the information society revolves around its potential to serve as a universal linguistic bridge in an increasingly interconnected and data-driven world. The explosion of information flows—through scientific research, global media, commerce, and social media—exacerbates the fragmentation caused by language barriers. Despite the rise of dominant languages ​​like English, the diversity of mother tongues still poses significant challenges to equitable access, clarity, and mutual understanding. The promise of Interlingua lies in its design: an accessible, neutral language based on common linguistic roots that could democratize the exchange of information.

Universal Access to Knowledge

A central aspect of Interlingua's utopia is the ideal of universal access to information. In the information society, knowledge is power, and language barriers create asymmetries in who can participate in the global discourse. Interlingua's naturalistic vocabulary, drawn from Romance languages ​​and English, makes it immediately understandable to millions of people, allowing for faster learning and use without the ideology and cultural baggage associated with national languages. This could empower non-native speakers to access, share, and contribute to scientific, technological, and cultural knowledge, thereby bridging the digital divide.

Neutrality and Inclusion

Interlingua embodies the utopian principle of language neutrality, essential in the politically charged environment of the information society. Unlike natural lingua francas that often bear the burden of cultural imperialism (e.g., English), Interlingua aspires to be a neutral tool, free from nationalist domination. This neutrality is crucial for the fair exchange of information, fostering trust and cooperation in international collaborations, open data initiatives, and global governance.

Communication Efficiency

Speed ​​and clarity of communication are vital in the information society, where information overload is a constant challenge. Interlingua's regular grammar and vocabulary, designed to be immediately recognizable and easy to process, offer an efficient linguistic system that minimizes misunderstandings and translation errors. This efficiency could facilitate everything from international scientific publishing to real-time data sharing and global problem-solving, embodying a utopian ideal of fluid communication.

Interlingua as a Tool for Cultural Exchange

Beyond its practical aspect, Interlingua represents a utopian vision of cultural dialogue and integration. By drawing on multiple European linguistic traditions, it symbolically unites diverse cultures under a shared communicative framework. In the information society, where cultural content proliferates and intercultural understanding is vital for social cohesion, Interlingua could serve as a medium that respects diversity and promotes mutual intelligibility.

Dystopian Aspects Related to the Interlingua Utopia

Every utopia, when imagining an ideal world, can also be analyzed in terms of its potential negative consequences or risks: dystopias. In the case of Interlingua, several dystopian aspects can emerge if this utopia is not handled carefully.

Dystopia of Cultural Homogenization and Loss of Diversity

A fundamental risk is that the massive success of a universal auxiliary language could:

Eliminate or diminish the importance of local and minority languages, causing an irreversible loss of culture, traditions, and ancestral knowledge. Lead to cultural homogenization, where the richness of human diversity is impoverished by the domination of a hegemonic language and culture. This aspect is especially relevant for Interlingua because, being based on Romance languages, it can represent a covert form of cultural Eurocentrism.

Dystopia of communicative control and surveillance

Another dystopia that can be associated, especially in the digital age, is that of totalitarian control of communication:

If a universal language is imposed or monopolized, it could be used as a tool for global surveillance, manipulation, or censorship. Linguistic uniformity would facilitate the standardization and mass monitoring of discourse, eliminating spaces for cultural and critical resistance. Although Interlingua is an open and voluntary project, its use in a hyperconnected world could be exploited for less altruistic purposes.

Dystopia of Failure and Exclusion

Finally, there is the dystopia of the failure of the linguistic utopia:

The practical impossibility of Interlingua's widespread adoption or adoption generates exclusion. The persistence of deep language barriers can increase social and political fragmentation, accentuating inequalities and a lack of understanding. In this sense, the linguistic utopia of Interlingua can become a source of frustration and alienation for its proponents.

Current Situation of the Interlingua Utopia in the 21st Century

In the present day, Interlingua remains a marginal yet symbolically powerful project. It represents a rationalist, pacifist, and technocratic utopia of global communication, but its real-world application is limited. Below is a detailed analysis of its current status across different dimensions.

Practical Use and Global Reach

Interlingua has a small but dedicated community of speakers, mainly in Europe and the Americas. It is used for hobbyist communication, translations, and some educational and scientific content. Unlike English, French, or even Esperanto (which is sometimes used recognition in international meetings and has some legal), Interlingua has no institutional backing or formal recognition by governments or international organizations. It maintains a modest online footprint—there are dictionaries, learning platforms, YouTube content, and online forums. However, its visibility is far eclipsed by English and even Esperanto.

Relevance in the Information Society

The ideals that motivated Interlingua—global communication, access to knowledge, and linguistic neutrality—are more relevant than ever in today's globalized, hyper-connected world. However English is the default language of science, business, academia, and digital platforms. Around 80% of all online scientific publications are in English. Machine translation and AI tools (like Google Translate, DeepL, and ChatGPT) are reducing the need for an intermediary universal language. The idea of ​​a constructed linguistic bridge is being replaced by automated multilingualism. Global South languages ​​remain underrepresented, and the Interlingua—despite its intentions—offers little to redress this imbalance because it draws mainly from Western European languages.

Cultural and Political Reception

While Interlingua was meant to be culturally neutral, critics point out that it reflects a Western European bias, primarily favoring Romance languages ​​and international scientific vocabulary rooted in Latin and Greek. In the 21st century, the ideal of linguistic diversity and plurilingualism has gained more traction than linguistic unification. UNESCO, for example, promotes cultural and linguistic plurality as essential to sustainable development.

Philosophical synthesis

The utopia of Interlingua is situated at the crossroads between a rationalist and humanist ideal, which believes in reason and science to solve fundamental problems of humanity, such as communication and peace and a multicultural and complex reality, where communication is not only technical, but deeply political and cultural.

In the information society, the utopia of a common language reflects a hope for a more interconnected and understanding world. However, it also highlights the tensions between unity and diversity, homogenization and plurality, control and freedom.

From a critical philosophical perspective, Interlingua exemplifies the dialectic of utopias: every ideal vision contains within itself potential elements for progress, oppression, or failure.

Conclusion

Interlingua, as an international auxiliary language project, represents much more than a grammatical system or a communication tool, it constitutes a comprehensive utopian proposal with deep philosophical, political, and cultural roots. It was born in the 20th century, but draws on a long intellectual tradition that dreams of a world united through language.

In the context of the history of utopias, Interlingua is situated at the confluence of three major currents: the rationalist utopia, which relies on logic and systematic design to improve human life; the cosmopolitan utopia, which aspires to unify humanity under common principles of understanding; and the functional or technical utopia, which seeks to solve a specific problem through effective innovation. Interlingua combines these three elements, it is presented as a technical solution, rationally designed, with the ambition of promoting global brotherhood.

However, like any utopia, Interlingua stands the test of time and reality. In the current context of the information society, where data flows and global interconnectivity have transformed human communication, the linguistic utopia takes on new meanings. The desire for a common language that facilitates global understanding seems more urgent than ever, but also more complex. Translation technologies, the dominance of English as a lingua franca, and the vindication of local and minority languages ​​create a scenario of constant tensions between unification and plurality.

From this perspective, the Interlingua utopia reveals both its lights and its shadows. On the one hand, it remains an inspiring vision: the belief that, beyond cultural differences, human beings can find a common way of speaking, sharing knowledge, resolving conflicts, and building a more peaceful world. On the other hand, it also represents a potential risk of **cultural uniformity**, of making the planet's linguistic richness invisible, and even of becoming, paradoxically, a tool of exclusion or control if used coercively or elitistly.

Interlingua has not been widely adopted, but that does not make it a failure. Rather, it can be seen as a persistent symbol of utopian imagination, of that impulse to imagine alternatives, to experiment with futures, to design other ways of inhabiting the world. In times of fragmentation, war, and polarization, its proposal—albeit modest—reminds us that it is still possible to dream of a common language that is not imposed, but shared; not exclusive, but integrative.

Because ultimately, the true value of utopias lies not in their literal realization, but in their capacity to make us think, to provoke, to mobilize the ethical and political imagination. And in that sense, Interlingua continues to speak to us, even if it is not (yet) in everyone's language.